4 Comments

Recommended Comments

Right on. I never noticed how misleading the LGPL is. It's all like "you can link this library with commercial apps" but then there's clause 6A.

I like the Zlib/BSD/MIT licenses too. Non-viral open-source with no warranty, that's it. The GNU people say this undermines their movement, but in practice the main reason I contribute patches to existing libs is because I'm using them in commercial projects and I don't want to re-patch every time I upgrade!

Share this comment

Link to comment

A question on your multiplayer. Why wouldn't the developer be able to ban someone? Can't technically a developer ban someone from multiplayer for whatever reason they feel like? There is no legal obligation to let someone play multiplayer, is there? As long as the ToS was something as simple as "Developer reserves the right to ban whomever it pleases from multiplayer"

0

Share this comment

Link to comment

"Developer reserves the right to ban whomever it pleases from multiplayer"

If these are the terms of service, you would be able to ban anyone for no reason. But doing that is a liability in itself, as any type of action that could, by any degree, be considered discrimination can bring trouble; a lot more than a Terms of Service that defines rights and wrongs, and gives a real reason when applying suppressive measures.

Today, you could ban someone completely against your own ToS though. We are yet to get to a point where a game account is worth a lawsuit. But with the growing number of games where one can actually make money in (like second life, or that failed Diablo3) it is time we start to prevent this type of problem; prevention is better than cure.